iiiliw 


m^ 


•Jf 


!:'¥  i^z'j:-''-,.^ .  •fc%;>?^vny  '»i'a.f---'^''.-«--"^sge.4.'-ti:'- 


f^  TJT>¥KT/->C>'r/-»H.T      KT         T  ♦J 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Si 


L^ 


Presented   bT^ro-  ^T^B .  \J^^  <:7^.r^\  A  O  ,~S)  ."D . 


Section  ■ 


^ymil   dtou^oiu.^/^e.'y^^^ .^i-'^i^.^hl 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS. 

BY   THE    REV.    CHARLES   A.    BRIGGS,     D.  D.,    PROFESSOR   OB'   BIBLI- 
CAL  THEOLOGY    IN   THE    UNION   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 


The  church  of  Jesus  Christ  was  established  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  by  the  advent  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  theophany.  The 
divine  Spirit  came  in  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  the  Messiah 
himself.  "  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away  :  for  if  I  go 
not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I  go,  I 
will  send  him  unto  you.  .  .  .  Ilowbeit,  when  he,  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth." — (Johnxvi., 
7,  13.)  The  divine  Spirit  came  in  order  to  remain  in  the  church 
as  the  counsellor  and  guide  during  the  entire  Messianic  age  until 
the  second  advent  of  the  Son  of  God.  Accordingly  when  the 
Christian  Church  in  all  lands  and  in  all  ages  has  expressed  its  faith 
"in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  it  has  thereby  confessed  his  presence  and 
divine  guidance  in  the  church.  All  that  wonderful  advance  in 
Christian  life  and  doctrine  that  transformed  the  ancient  civiliza- 
tions, conquered  Celtic,  Germanic,  and  Slavonic  races,  and 
made  Christianity  the  religion  of  the  world,  is  an  evidence  of  the 
presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Progress  in  doctrine  and  life  is  a  necessary  experience  of  a 
living  church  ;  and  that  progress  will  never  cease  until  the  churcii 
attains  its  goal  in  the  knowledge  of  all  the  truth,  in  a  holiness  re- 
flecting the  purity  anJ  excellence  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  a  trans- 
formed and  glorified  world. 

Those  holy  men  who  were  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  found 
the  Christian  Church  and  build  the  first  layers  of  its  superstruct- 
ure, have  given  sacred  writings  which  must  ever  remain  the  rule 
of  faith  and  life.  Holy  Scripture  presents.the  ideal  towards  which 
the  church  ever  aims  with  earnest  strivings.  The  Holy  Spirit 
guides  the  church  in  its  appropriation  of  Holy  Scripture,  and 
this  is  ever  a  progressive  knowing  and  a  progressive  practice,  for 
Christian  knowledge  cannot  advance  far  beyond  Christian  life. 

I. — THE  advance  of  THE  CHURCH. 

Progress  has  always  been  confronted  by  conservatives  and  re- 


100  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

actiouaries.  Jesus  and  Paul  had  a  life-long  struggle  with  Phari- 
sees. Every  advance  in  Christian  doctrine  and  the  holy  life  has 
cost  the  heroic  leaders  agony  and  blood.  But  the  advance  has 
been  made  in  spite  of  every  opposition.  The  conservative  and  the 
progressive  forces  are  in  perpetual  conflict.  They  wage  a  war 
that  will  reach  its  end  only  in  the  last  triumph  of  Christ. 

The  progress  of  the  church  is  registered  in  symbolical  books, 
liturgies,  creeds,  and  canons  of  order  and  discipline.  If  the 
church  had  submitted  itself  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
it  is  possible  that  its  progress  would  have  been  normal  and  its 
decisions  would  have  been  infallible.  But  in  fact  human  forces 
have  obstructed  the  free  development  of  Christian  doctrine  and 
life.  Human  passion  and  strife,  violence,  oppression,  and  crime 
have  too  often  given  shape  and  color  to  the  decisions  of  Christian 
synods  and  councils  ;  and  therefore  their  decisions  have  mingled 
God's  truth  with  luunan  errors.  We  cannot  rest  with  confidence 
upon  the  decrees  of  any  ecclesiastical  assembly. 

"  All  synods  and  councils  since  the  Apostles'  times,  whether  general  or 
particular,  may  err,  and  many  have  erred.  Tberefore,  they  are  not  to  be 
made  the  rule  of  faith  or  practice;  but  to  be  used  as  a  help  in  both." — 
(West.  Conf.,  XXXI.,  4.) 

The  ancient  controversies  that  separated  the  Oriental  churches 
and  then  the  Greek  Church  from  the  Latin  Church  were  inten- 
sified by  human  passion  and  ambition.  In  all  these  controversies 
the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  Latin  Church  were  real  advances 
in  theology ;  but  the  unchristian  conduct  of  the  leaders  of  the 
cliurch  brought  on  those  unfortunate  divisions  which  not  only 
sacrificed  the  unity  of  the  church,  but  also  gave  Islam  an  easy 
victory  over  a  distracted  Christendom,  and  well-nigh  yielded  the 
supremacy  of  the  world. 

The  Latin  Church  was  in  throes  of  reformation  for  many 
generations  before  Luther  and  Zwingli.  The  stubborn  resistance 
to  the  reforming  spirit  broke  the  Latin  Church  into  pieces,  and 
resulted  in  tlie  formation  of  a  number  of  national  churches  over 
against  the  Church  of  Rome.  These  all  defined  their  position  in 
symbols  of  faith  in  antagonism  with  all  other  parties.  The  three 
great  principles  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  were  :  1,  the  au- 
thority of  tlie  Scriptures  is  supreme  over  the  authority  of  the  church ; 
2.  men  are  justified  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  by  good 
works  prescribed  by  the  church ;  3,  men  are  saved  by  divine  grace, 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  101 

and  not  by  magical  rites  and  ceremonies.  These  great  principles 
of  the  Refornuitiou  gave  new  shape  and  color  to  all  other  Christ- 
ian doctrines  that  were  looked  at  from  the  new  point  of  view. 

The  lieformers  were  men  of  great  intellectual  and  moral  vigor. 
Their  doctrines  were  the  expression  of  their  Christian  life  and 
experience.  But  they  were  succeeded  by  lesser  men  who  gave 
their  energies  to  the  construction  of  systems  of  dogma.  These 
soon  enveloped  the  principles  of  the  lleformation  in  a  cloud  of 
speculations  and  established  a  Protestant  scholasticism,  ecclesias- 
ticism,  and  ritualism  which  seemed  to  earnest  men  little  bet- 
ter than  that  which  the  Reformers  had  cast  aside.  Accord- 
ingly a  second  reformation  arose  in  Great  Britain  in  the  form  of 
Puritanism,  which  reaffirmed  and  sharpened  the  principles  of 
the  Reformation  and  advanced  towards  a  holy  doctrine,  a  holy 
discipline,  and  a  holy  life.  The  Puritan  Reformation  passed 
over  to  the  Continent  in  the  form  of  Pietism  and  transformed 
the  churches  of  Germany  and  Holland  ;  but  in  Great  Britain  the 
Puritan  became  puritanical,  and  the  choicest  youth,  driven  from 
the  British  universities  and  educated  in  Switzerland  and  Holland, 
returned  with  a  scholastic  theology  which  soon  took  the  ])lace 
of  the  princijsles  of  Puritanism. 

A  third  reforming  movement  arose  with  Whitefield,  Wesley, 
Edwards,  and  others,  and  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  and  Christ- 
ian experience  became  the  prominent  features  of  the  new  ad- 
vance. But  this  regenerating  force  ere  long  became  hardened 
into  a  cold  and  barren  evangelicalism. 

All  of  these  movements  were  due  to  the  reviving  influences  of 
the  divine  Spirit,  and  each  of  them  made  marked  advance  in  Christ- 
ian theology  and  Christian  life.  Each  advance,  however,  carried 
with  it  only  a  section  of  the  church,  so  that  the  Christian  Church 
of  our  day,  in  its  divisions,  represents  every  stage  of  progress  since 
the  apostolic  times.  This  should  lead  to  the  reflection  that  these 
advances,  however  important  in  themselves,  have  not  been  suffi- 
ciently comprehensive  and  essential  to  embrace  the  whole  of 
Christendom.  The  great  verities  of  the  Christian  religion  are  in 
the  Nicene  and  the  Apostles'  creeds,  wherein  there  is  concord. 
We  stand  upon  the  heights  of  the  last  of  these  great  movements 
of  Christendom.  We  accept  all  that  has  been  gained  in  them  all. 
But  we  recognize  that  each  one  of  them  in  turn  became  exhausted 
and  hardened  a:id  stereotyped  in  a  dead  orthodoxy,  owing  to 


102  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

the  reacting  influeuces  of  conservatism  and  traditionalism.  What 
is  the  gain  if  you  substitute,  first,  Protestant  tradition  for  Roman 
Catholic,  and  then  Puritan  for  Protestant,  and  finally  Evangeli- 
cal for  Puritan  ?  Tlie  advance  is  in  the  principles  and  in  the 
essential  features  of  the  movements.  We  must  distinguish  be- 
tween the  essential  and  the  non-essential.  As  soon  as  we  do  this, 
we  see  Christendom  rising  in  a  pyramid  of  grace,  encompassed  by 
tombs  of  dead  theories  and  parties,  and  dreary  wastes  of  human 
speculation  ;  and  we  discern  that  there  is  but  one  platform  for 
Christendom — the  common  consent  in  the  Kicene  and  the  Apos- 
tles' creeds.  All  else  is  in  the  sphere  of  Christian  liberty.  As 
Isaac  Taylor  once  said  : 

"  But  thus  It  is,  and  ever  has  been,  that  those  who  are  sent  by  heaven  to 
bring  about  great  and  necessary  movements,  which,  however,  are,  after  a 
time,  either  to  subside,  or  to  fall  into  a  larger  orbit,  are  left  to  the  short- 
sightedness of  their  own  minds  in  fastening  upon  their  work  some  append- 
age (perhaps  unobserved)  which,  after  a  cycle  of  revolutions,  must  secure 
the  accomplishment  of  heaven's  own  purpose — the  stopping  of  that  move- 
ment. Religious  singularities  are  heaven's  brand,  imprinted  by  the  unknow- 
ing band  of  man,  upon  whatever  is  destined  to  last  its  season,  and  to  dis- 
appear."— ("Wesley  and  Methodism,"  p.  81.) 

We  have  reached  a  period  in  which  all  the  great  movements 
have  spent  their  force,  and  there  are  that  confusion,  agitation,  and 
perplexity  which  indicate  the  birth  of  a  new  movement  that  will 
absorb,  comprehend,  and  carry  to  loftier  heights  all  that  have  pre- 
ceded it.  When  all  the  isms  have  been  broken  off,  the  jagged 
edges  of  controversies  will  disappear,  and  Christian  parties  will 
fuse  into  a  common  brotherhood. 

II.— THE    KEAL   ISSUE. 

No  one  can  understand  the  issues  involved  in  the  present 
theological  crisis  unless  he  distinguish  three  things :  1,  the 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture ;  2,  the  doctrine  of  the  creeds ;  3, 
traditional  dogma.  In  the  evolution  of  Christian  theology  the 
constant  tendency  is  to  overlay  Scripture  and  creed  with  tradition. 
Every  reforming  movement  must  strip  off  the  traditional  dogmas 
from  the  Scriptures  and  present  the  genuine  achievement  of  the 
church  as  expressed  in  its  official  symbols  apart  from  speculative 
elaborations.  This  is  the  real  issue  at  the  present  time.  There  is 
a  rally  of  dogmaticians  and  traditionalists  against  those  Bibli- 
cal and   historical   scholars  who   are  aiming  to   dethrone  tradi- 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  103 

tion  and  put  Holy  Scripture  and  the  creeds  in  their  proper 
position  of  authority  in  the  church. 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  thinking  man  that  the  traditional 
dogma  has  been  battling  against  philosophy  and  science,  history 
and  literature,  and  every  form  of  human  learning.  In  this 
battle  the  Bible  and  the  creeds  have  been  used  in  the  interests  of 
this  dogma,  and  they  and  the  church  have  been  compromised 
thereby.  It  is  of  vast  importance,  therefore,  to  rescue  the  Bible 
and  the  creeds  from  the  dogmaticians.  There  can  belittle  doubt 
that  the  traditional  dogma  is  doomed.  Shall  it  be  allowed  to  drag 
down  into  perdition  with  it  the  Bible  and  the  creeds  ?  The  dog- 
maticians claim  that  their  dogma  is  in  the  creed  ;  if  we  do  not 
submit  to  it,  we  must  leave  the  church.  They  insist  that  their 
dogma  is  in  the  Bible,  and  if  we  do  not  accept  it,  we  must  give  up 
the  Bible.  Biblical  scholars  and  historical  students  propose  to  do 
neither  of  these  things  ;  on  the  contrary,  to  Jiold  up  the  Bible  as 
the  supreme  authority  for  the  church  ;  to  build  on  the  creeds  as 
the  ecclesiastical  test  of  orthodoxy.  Traditional  dogma  is  a 
usurper,  and  it  will  bo  dethroned  from  its  last  stronghold  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

Traditional  dogma  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  chiefly  the 
scholastic  Calvinism  of  the  seventeenth  century  of  Switzerland 
and  Holland,  mingled  with  elements  from  British  Evangelicalism 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  But  alongside  of  it  is  an  apologetic 
based  upon  the  Arminianism  of  Bishop  Butler  and  an  ethical 
philosophy  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  is  this  internal  strife 
between  Calvinistic  dogma,  Arminian  apologetics,  and  rationalistic 
ethics  that  has  brought  on  the  crisis  in  the  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  churches.  Calvinistic  dogma  has  been  well-nigh 
eliminated  from  the  Congregational  churches.  In  the  Presby- 
terian Church  semi-Arminianism  demands  a  revision  of  the 
Calvinistic  sections  of  theWestminster  Confession.  The  Calvinistic 
party  in  the  Episcopal  Church  is  a  vanishing  quantity.  The 
Baptist  churches  seem  to  be  strong  in  their  Calvinism,  but  there 
are  signs  of  weakness  in  these  also. 

But  the  battle  between  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  is  no 
longer  of  any  practical  importance  to  the  Christian  world.  The 
vast  majority  of  Christians  have  settled  down  into  an  intermedi- 
ate position.  It  may  be  important  to  Presbyterians  to  change  the 
complexion  of  the  Calvinism  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  but 


104  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

such  a  change  will  luive  little  or  no  influence  upon  the  currents  of 
modern  theology. 

The  most  importiint  questions  of  our  duy  are  not  determined 
in  any  of  the  creeds  of  the  church,  and  are,  therefore,  beyond 
the  range  of  orthodoxy.  AVhen  the  church,  in  its  oflicial  organs, 
decides  these  questions,  then  for  the  first  time  will  they  enter  into 
the  field  of  orthodoxy.  Tlieological  discussion  at  the  present 
time  is,  for  the  most  part,  above  and  beyond  the  lines  of  denomi- 
national distinctions.  All  Christian  theologians  are  engaged  in 
them,  without  regard  to  sect  or  calling.  '  They  centre  about  three 
great  topics  :  the  first  things — Bible,  church,  and  reason  ;  the  last 
things — the  whole  field  of  eschatology  ;  and  the  central  thing — 
the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ. 

111. — THE    SEAT   OF    AUTHORITY    IN    RELIGION. 

This  was  an  essential  question  at  the  Reformation.  It  has 
been  a  fundamental  doctrine  ever  since.  There  are  three  seats  of 
divine  authority — the  Bible,  the  church,  and  the  reason.  Define 
Bible,  church,  and  reason  as  you  may,  in  any  case  God  ap- 
proaches men  through  each  of  them.  The  Christian  Church  is 
divided  into  three  great  parties — Evangelicals,  Churchmen,  and 
Rationalists.  But  there  are  many  subdivisions  of  these  parties, 
and  not  a  few  who  take  intermediate  positions.  The  Churchmen 
make  the  church  supreme  over  Bible  and  reason.  The  Evan- 
gelicals make  the  Bible  supreme  over  church  and  reason. 
The  Rationalists  make  the  reason  supreme.  The  conflict  be- 
tween Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants  since  the  Reformation 
leaves  these  two  great  parties  in  very  much  the  same  rela- 
tive strength  as  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Two 
hundred  years  have  shown  that  the  one  is  not  to  conquer  the 
other.  But  in  the  meanwhile  the  rationalistic  party,  which 
had  but  few  adherents  in  the  sixteenth  century,  has  gained 
from  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  alike.  On  the  continent  of 
Europe,  at  least,  it  is  well-nigh  equal  to  either  of  the  others.  It 
seems  altog^her  probable  that  neither  party  is  to  yield  in  the 
contest ;  there  must  be  some  way  of  reconciliation  in  a  higher 
unity.  All  earnest  men  should  strive  after  such  a  reconcilia- 
tion. The  historian  recognizes  that  men  have  found  God  in 
the  Bible,  the  church,  and  the  reason.  If  this  is  so,  it  is  evident 
that  those  who  use  the  tluee  media  of  communication  with  God, 


TBE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  105 

and  use  them  to  the  utmost,  will  be  most  likely  to  attain  the 
highest  degree  of  union  and  communion  with  God.  It  is  the 
opinion  of  Christian  scholars  that  Socrates  and  pure-minded 
heathen  have  ever  found  God  in  the  forms  of  the  reason.  Why 
should  we  deny  that  a  modern  Rationalist  like  Martineau,  and 
seekers  after  God  among  the  people  who  are  fenced  off  from 
Bible  and  church  by  the  exactions  of  priest  and  ecclesiastic,  find 
God  enthroned  in  their  own  hearts  ?  The  divine  Spirit  "  worketh 
when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth"  (West.  Conf.,  x.,  3)  ;  and 
though  he  ordinarily  works  through  Bible  and  church,  yet  when 
these  channels  of  divine  grace  are  obstructed  by  the  rags  of 
human  dogmatism,  or  when  by  the  neglect  of  the  ministry  they 
do  not  reach  forth  to  the  weak,  the  ignorant,  and  the  destitute, 
the  divine  Spirit  works  without  them  in  the  enlightening  and 
salvation  of  men.  When  I  take  this  position,  I  do  not  deny  the 
Protestant  position  that  Holy  Scripture  is  supreme.  I  simply 
affirm  that,  where  Holy  Scripture  does  not  work  as  a  means  of 
grace,  the  divine  Spirit  may  work  now  as  he  worked  before  the 
Bible  and  the  church  came  into  existence. 

When  I  say  that  Newman  and  multitudes  of  Roman  Catholics, 
Greek  Catholics,  Orientals,  and  churchmen  of  every  name  have 
found  God  through  the  church,  I  agree  with  the  Reformers  in 
recognizing  these  as  Christians,  and  I  do  not  deny  the  supremacy 
of  the  Scriptures.  AVhere  the  Scriptures  are  withheld  from  the 
jjeople  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  or  where  earnest  seekers  after 
God  are  driven  from  the  Bible  by  the  dogmas  of  traditional  or- 
thodoxy, how  can  the  grace  of  God  flow  to  them  through  the 
Scriptures  ?  Those  who  restrain  them  from  the  Bible  have  the 
blame  of  keeping  them  from  this  gate  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Tiie  only  ways  of  access  left  them  are  the  church  and  the  reason. 
And  if  they  have  not  been  taught  to  use  the  reason  as  a  means  of 
access  to  God,  G  od's  Spirit  will  make  the  church  an  avenue  of  grace. 

It  is  our  contention  that  each  one  of  the  channels  of  divine 
grace  should  be  cleared  of  obstructions  ;  that  each  one  should  be 
made  free  and  open  to  the  use  of  man.  Then,  in  our  opinion,  Holy 
Scripture  will  rise  into  acknowledged  superiority  over  them  all. 

IV. — HOLY    SCRIPTURE. 

The  chief  reason  why  men  do  not  universally  recognize  the 
supremacy  of  Holy  Scrijitiro   is  that  the  scholastics  and  tradi- 


106  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

tionulists  have  thrust  the  Scriptures  aside,  have  encased  them  in 
speculative  dogma,  and  have  used  dogmatic  theories  of  the  Bible 
as  a  wall  to  fence  oflE  earnest,  truth-seeking  men.  We  present 
several  of  these  dogmatic  utterances. 

"  The  Presbyterian  Church,  in  unison  with  all  evangelical  Christians, 
teaches  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  having  been 
given  by  the  immediate  and  plenary  inspiration  of  God,  are  both  in  meaning 
and  verbal  expression  the  Word  of  God  to  man." 

"  A  proved  error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  only  oui-  doctrine,  but  the 
Scripture's  claims,  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making  those  claims." 

"  Every  book  is  genuine  which  was  esteemed  genuine  by  those  who 
lived  nearest  to  the  time  when  it  was  written,  and  by  the  ages  following,  in 
a  continued  series." 

"  So  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  those  books,  and  those  only, 
which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  recognized  as  the  written  word  of  God  are  en- 
titled to  be  regarded  as  canonical.  .  .  .  The  principle  on  which  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament  is  determined  is  equally  simple.  Those  books,  and  those 
only,  which  can  be  proved  to  have  been  written  by  the  Apostles,  or  to  have 
received  their  sanction,  are  to  be  recognized  as  of  divine  authority." 

"  If,  as  one  asserts,  '  the  great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  by 
authors  whose  names  are  lost  in  oblivion,'  it  was  written  by  uninspired  men. 
.  .  .  This  would  be  the  inspiration  of  indefinite  persons  like  Tom,  Dick,  and 
Harry,  whom  nobody  knows,  and  not  of  definite  historical  persons  like 
Moses  and  David,  Matthew  and  John,  chosen  by  God  by  name  and  known 
to  men." 

These  are  specimens  of  the  statements  of  the  dogmaticians  of 
our  day,  and  of  the  traditional  theories  of  the  Bible  that  prevail 
among  the  ministry.  They  claim  that  inspiration  is  verbal ;  the 
Bible  is  inerrant  in  every  particular  ;  the  traditional  authors  of 
the  Biblical  books  must  have  written  them  ;  the  canon  accepted  by 
i\\e  primitive  c\\\\Yo\i  must  be  accepted  by  us.  These  dogmatic 
utterances  are  insisted  upon  as  if  they  were  orthodox,  and  yet  in 
fact  there  is  not  a  creed  in  Christendom  that  indorses  them  ; 
there  is  no  Biblical  authority  for  them  ;  they  are  purely  specula- 
tions and  traditions,  without  any  binding  authority  whatever. 
These  dogmas  confront  a  scientific  study  of  the  Bible. 

1.  The  critical  study  of  the  canon  shows  clearly  that  the 
Christian  Church  has  never  been  in  concord  on  this  subject.  The 
Roman  Catholic  Church  follows  the  broader  canon  of  St. 
Augustine  and  the  Septnagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Protestants  follow  the  stricter  canon  of  St.  Jerome  and  the  Jew- 
ish synod  of  Jamnia.  But  not  a  few  of  the  writings  of  the 
stricter  canon  were  disputed  by  Jew  and  Christian.  And 
the    Christian    writers  of    the   ante-Nicene     age   used   as  Holy 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  107 

Scripture  several  writings  wliicli  are  not  in  the  Augustiuiau 
canon.  The  Koman  Catholics  build  their  canon  on  the  authority 
of  the  living  historical  church.  The  Reformers  built  their  canon 
upon  the  authority  of  the  divine  Spirit  speaking  in  Holy  Script- 
ure to  the  believer. 

"  We  know  these  books  to  be  canonical  and  the  sure  rule  of  our  faith, 
not  so  much  by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the  church,  as  by  the 
testimony  and  inward  persuasion  of  the  Holy  Spmt,  which  enables  us  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  ecclesiastical  books." — (Gallican  Confession,  IV.) 

The  modern  Rationalists  test  the  canon  by  the  reason.  But 
modern  Evangelicalism  builds  not  on  the  judgment  of  the  nine, 
teenth  century,  but  the  judgment  of  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries; not  on  the  authority  of  the  living  church,  but  on  the 
authority  of  the  dead  church.  It  has  abandoned  the  internal 
divine  evidence  of  canonicity,  and  destroyed  the  base  of  Prot- 
estantism. It  builds  on  an  uncertain,  fluctuating  tradition,  and 
in  that  tradition  selects  the  narrower  rather  than  the  broader  line. 

2.  Textual  criticism  destroys  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion. Language  is  the  vehicle,  the  dress,  of  thought.  Thought 
may  find  expression  in  any  one  of  a  thousand  languages  ;  it  may 
be  dressed  in  a  great  variety  of  synonymes,  phrases,  and  literary 
forms,  in  any  highly-developed  language.  The  form  may  vary  in- 
definitely, and  yet  the  meaning  be  essentially  the  same.  The  divine 
communication  to  the  prophet's  mind,  and  the  inspiration  to  give 
it  utterance  by  pen  or  tongue,  does  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  the 
inspiration  of  the  tongue  in  its  utterances  or  the  pen  in  its  con- 
structions.    No  creed  in  Christendom  teaches  verbal  inspiration. 

I  shall  quote  a  few  English  Presbyterians  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  who  had  great  influence  in  the  formation  of  the  Puritan 
faith. 

"  All  language  or  writing  is  but  the  vessel,  the  symbol,  or  declaration  of 
the  rule,  not  the  rule  itself."  "For  it  is  not  the  shell  of  the  words,  but  the 
kernel  of  the  matter,  which  commends  itself  to  the  consciences  of  men,  and 
that  is  the  same  in  all  languages."  "  The  Scripture  stands  not  in  cortice  ver- 
borum  but  in  medulla  sensus  ;  it  is  the  same  wine  in  this  vessel  which  was 
drawn  out  of  that."  "  The  Scriptures  in  themselves  are  a  lanthorn  rather 
than  a  light ;  they  shine  indeed,  but  it  is  alieno  lumine  ;  it  is  not  their  own, 
but  a  borrowed  light."  * 

These    are    testimonies    of    Lyford,  Poole,   Vines,  and  Wall  is, 
among  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of  tlieir  time.     They  coni- 

•  See  Briggs's  "Whither  1"  p.  66.    Chab.  Scribner's  Sons. 


108  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  MEVIEW. 

pare  the  words  of  Scri])tiire  to  vessels,  symbols,  shells,  wine-glass, 
liiuteru.  The  divine  word  is  in  tlie  contents,  the  rule  itself,  the 
kernel,  the  wine,  the  light.  Textual  criticism  finds  no  difficulty 
with  these  ancient  divines  and  their  doctrine  of  inspiration,  but 
it  casts  olf  the  modern  dogma  of  verbal  inspiration  as  the  shroud 
of  divine  truth,  the  grave-clothes  of  the  Word  of  God. 

3.  The  higher  or  literary  criticism  on  purely  scientific  princi- 
ples determines  the  integrity,  authenticity,  literary  forms,  and 
credibility  of  the  Scriptures.  It  works  with  the  same  rules  that  are 
used  in  every  other  department  of  the  world's  literature.  These 
l)rinciples  are  :  1.  The  writing  must  be  in  accordance  with  its 
supposed  historic  position  as  to  time,  place,  and  circumstances, 
2.  Difierences  of  style  imply  differences  of  experience  and  age 
of  the  same  author,  or,  when  sufficiently  great,  differences  of 
autiior  and  period  of  composition.  3.  Differences  of  ojnnion  and 
conce^ition  imply  differences  of  author  when  these  are  sufficiently 
great,  and  also  differences  of  period  of  composition.  4.  Citations 
show  the  dependence  of  author  upon  author,  or  authors  cited. 
5.  Positive  testimony.  6.  The  argument  from  silence.*  The 
application  of  these  rules  to  the  scientific  study  of  the  Bible  has 
shown  tliat  a  large  part  of  the  traditions  as  to  authorship,  date, 
style,  and  integrity  have  no  solid  ground.  As  I  recently  said  in 
my  inaugural  address  : 

'•  Traditionalists  are  crying  out  that  it  is  destroying  the  Bible,  because  it 
is  exposing  their  fallacies  and  follies.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  re- 
sult ot  the  science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pen- 
tateuch or  Job ;  Ezra  did  not  write  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  ;  Jeremiah 
did  not  write  Kings  or  Lamentations  ;  David  did  not  write  the  Psalter,  but 
only  a  few  of  the  Psalms ;  Solomon  did  not  write  the  Song  of  Songs  or  Ecclesi- 
astes,  and  only  a  portion  of  the  Proverbs ;  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name.  The  great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written 
by  authors  whose  names  or  connection  with  their  writings  are  lost  in  oblivion. 
If  this  is  destroying  the  Bible,  the  Bible  is  destroyed  already.  But  who  tells 
us  tbat  these  traditional  names  were  the  authors  of  the  Bible  ?  The  Bible 
itself  f  The  creeds  of  the  Church  ?  Any  reliable,  historical  testimony '{  None 
of  these!  Pure  conjectural  tradition!  Nothing  more  1  "—("Authority  of 
Uoly  Scripture,"  p.  3:3.    Chas,  Scribner's  Sons.) 

Higher  criticism  cuts  up  the  dogmatic  theory  of  the  Bible 
from  the  roots.  If  the  traditional  dogma  be  corrrect,  higher  crit- 
icism, for  all  who  accept  its  conclusions,  has  destroyed  the  in- 
spiration of  a  large  part  of  the  Bible.     The  dogmaticians  and 

*  See  Briges  s  "  Biblical  Study,    pp.  87  scq.  Chas.  Scribncr  s  fc'cns. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  109 

those  who  follow  them  must  battle  with  higher  criticism  in  a 
life-and-death  struggle.  They  have  identified  Bible  and  creed 
with  their  dogma,  and  they  are  risking  everything  on  the  issue 
of  the  struggle.  But  higher  criticism  has  no  difliculty  in  deal- 
ing with  them.  We  ask  them  who  wrote  the  orphan  Psalms  and 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  They  cannot  tell  us.  Are  these 
books  to  go  out  o£  their  canon  because  they  were  written  by  "Tom, 
Dick,  and  Harry,"  whom  we  do  not  know  to  be  inspired  ?  And 
even  if  we  could  find  authors  for  all  the  Biblical  books,  how  can 
we  prove  the  inspiration  of  the  writers  except  from  the  books  ? 
And  yet  we  are  asked  to  accejot  these  very  books  because  they 
were  written  by  these  inspired  men.  On  such  a  vicious  circle  the 
dogmaticians  build  their  faith. 

Higher  criticism  finds  no  more  difficulty  in  accei^ting  the  in- 
spiration of  those  great  unknown  poets  who  Avrote  the  book  of  Job 
and  the  exilic  Isaiah  than  it  does  of  the  prophets  Hosea  and  Slicah, 
respecting  whom  there  is  no  doubt.  The  Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews 
is  as  divine  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  the  name  of  Paul  does 
not  add  a  feather's  weight  to  its  authority.  "We  determine  the 
inspiration  of  the  writer  from  the  inspiration  of  the  book,  and 
we  determine  the  inspiration  of  the  book  from  its  internal  char- 
acter and  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  it  to  the  be- 
liever. The  same  Holy  Spirit  who  guided  holy  men  to  produce 
the  writings  gives  assurance  to  those  Avho  use  them  that  they  are 
the  Word  of  God. 

"Theauthority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to  be  believed 
and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but 
wholly  upon  God  (who  is  truth  itself),  the  author  thereof  ;  and  therefore  it  is 
to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God."— (West.  Conf,,  I.,  4.) 

4.  The  chief  struggle  between  Biblical  criticism  and  the  tra- 
ditional dogma  is  about  the  question  of  inerrancy.  No  word  of 
Holy  Scripture,  no  sentence  of  historic  creed,  makes  this  claim  for 
the  Bible.  It  is  a  theory  of  modern  dogmaticians.  Biblical 
criticism  finds  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  in  great  numbers. 
These  errors  are  in  the  circumstantials,  and  not  in  the  essentials. 
They  do  not  disturb  any  doctrine  ;  they  do  not  change  the  faith 
and  life  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  great  reformers,  Calvin 
and  Luther,  recognized  errors  in  the  Scriptures  ;  Baxter  and  Ruth- 
erford were  not  anxious  about  them  ;  the  greatest  theologians 
of  modern  Germany,  Van  Oosterzee,   Tholuck,  Neander,  Stier, 


110  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

Lange,  Dorner,  Dclitzch,  do  not  ignore  them.  Where  is  the 
German  schohir  of  any  rank  who  denies  them  ?  British  scholars 
such  as  Sanday,  Cheyne,  Driver,  Gore,  Davidson,  Bruce,  Dods, 
Blaikie  ;  American  scholars  such  as  Schaff,  Fisher,  Thayer, 
Harper,  Smyth,  Evans,  II.  P.  Smith,  Francis  Brown,  and  hosts 
of  others,  frankly  point  them  out.  It  may  be  regarded  as  the 
consensus  of  Biblical  scholars  that  the  Bible  is  not  inerrant ; 
and  yet  the  dogmaticians  insist  that  one  error  destroys  its 
inspiration.  They  battle  in  death-struggle  for  their  dogma 
because  tlieir  Bible  shares  in  its  defeat.  They  risk  their 
whole  Bil)le  on  a  single  error.  One  error  in  citation,  one  error 
in  natural  history,  in  astronomy,  in  geology,  in  chronology, 
destroys  the  whole  Bible  for  them.  It  is  now  generally 
admitted  that  there  are  errors  in  the  present  text,  but  it  is 
claimed  that  the  original  autographs  as  they  first  came  from 
their  authors  were  inerrant.  But  how  can  they  prove  this  ?  It 
is  pure  speculation  in  the  interest  of  their  dogma.  Criticism  does 
not  find  the  number  of  errors  decreasing  ;  they  rather  increase  as 
we  work  our  way  back  in  the  study  of  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
citations,  and  advance  in  the  critical  analysis  of  the  literature. 
It  discredits  the  entire  work  of  criticism  to  speculate  as  to 
another  text  than  the  best  one  we  can  get  after  the  most  patient 
and  painstaking  study. 

Biblical  criticism  pursues  its  work  in  a  purely  scientific  spirit. 
It  will  detect,  recognize,  and  jjoint  out  errors  wherever  it  may  find 
them  in  Holy  Scripture.  If  the  Eeformers  and  Puritans,  the  great 
Biblical  scholars  of  the  past,  have  maintained  their  faith  in  the 
Bible  notwithstanding  the  errors  they  have  seen  in  it,  it  is  improb- 
able that  the  Biblical  critics  of  our  day  will  be  disturbed  by 
them.  If  any  one  is  disturbed,  it  will  be  those  who  have  been 
misled  by  the  dogmaticians  to  rest  their  faith  on  the  doctrine  of 
inerrancy.  These  will  ere  long  find  the  doctrine  a  broken  reed 
that  will  give  them  a  severe  fall  and  shock  to  their  faith,  if  it 
does  not  pierce  them  to  the  heart  with  the  bitter  agony  of  per- 
plexity and  doubt. 

5.  The  science  of  Biblical  interpretation  has  been  greatly  ad- 
vanced in  our  day.  This  advance  has  dislodged  not  a  few  proof- 
texts  of  systems  of  divinity,  and  destroyed  numberless  sermons. 
This  in  itself  excites  the  hostility  of  large  numbers  of  ministers 
to  the  newer  exegesis. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  HI 

6.  The  improvement  in  Biblical  history,  with  its  helps,  Bibli- 
cal geography,  archaeology,  natural  history,  has  changed  the  face 
of  Biblical  study. 

V. — BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY. 

The  most  important  department  of  recent  Biblical  science  is 
Biblical  theology.  Biblical  theology  rests  upon  Biblical  criticism. 
It  has  to  determine  the  theology  of  each  document  by  itself,  then 
to  compare  the  theologies  of  the  documents  and  ascertain  those 
things  in  which  they  agree  and  those  in  which  they  differ.  This 
work  proceeds  through  the  entire  Bible,  until  at  length  the  unity 
and  variety  of  Holy  Scripture  is  discerned  and  then  set  forth  in 
its  entirety.  Biblical  theology  traces  the  development  of  every 
doctrine,  every  form  of  religion,  and  every  phase  of  morals. 
Nothing  is  overlooked  that  is  found  in  the  Bible. 

Biblical  theology  is  the  youngest  of  the  daughters  of  Biblical 
science.  The  writer  of  this  article  was,  if  he  mistake  not,  the 
first  in  this  country  to  write  upon  the  subject  and  to  attempt  a 
complete  course  of  lectures  upon  it. 

The  study  of  Biblical  theology  puts  dogmatic  theology  to  a 
severe  test.  In  Germany  it  long  since  forced  a  reconstruction  of 
dogmatics.  The  great  systematic  theologians  of  our  time,  such 
as  Dorner,  Martensen,  Van  Oosterzee,  Miiller,  Kahnis,  Ritschl, 
build  upon  it.  But  few  American  dogmaticians  have  studied  it. 
They  persist  in  methods,  lines  of  argumentation,  and  a  use  of  proof- 
texts  which  have  long  since  baon  discarded  in  Europe.  The 
present  theological  crisis  is  due  largely  to  the  resistance  to  Biblical 
theology  on  the  part  of  the  dogmaticians  and  their  pupils,  repre- 
senting the  great  mijority  of  the  ministry,  who  were  trained  under 
the  old  methods.  They  have  been  taught  that  dogmatic  theology 
is  only  a  systematic  expression  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

But  Biblical  theology  makes  it  clear  that  these  systems  are 
chiefly  speculative,  and  that,  if  they  were  reduced  to  their 
Biblical  dimensions,  their  authors  would  hardly  recognize  them. 
Like  a  big  orange,  with  thick  skin  and  a  mass  of  pulp,  they  yield 
little  juice.  These  dogmatic  systems  neglect  large  masses  of  Holy 
Scripture  ;  they  depreciate  some  Biblical  doctrines  of  great  im- 
portance and  exaggerate  others  of  little  importance,  and  so  the 
whole  face  of  Biblical  doctrine  is  changed.  Let  any  one  study 
the  proof-texts  in  the  indexes  of  the  favorite  systems  of  dogma 
used  in  America,  and  he  will  at  once  see  the  significance  of  what 


112  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

liiis  been  said.  There  is  a  capricious  use  of  the  Bible  which 
is  the  reverse  of  systematic.  There  h  a  ])iling-up  of  huge 
masses  of  dogma  on  a  few  innocent  texts,  and  a  brief  men- 
tion of  those  comprehensive  Biblical  statements  such  as  Luther 
named  little  Bibles.  I  yield  to  no  one  in  admiration  of  a 
true  systematic  theology  such  as  those  attempted  by  Henry 
B.  Smith  and  Isaac  A.  Dorner,  Martensen,  Kahnis,  and  Van 
Oosterzee.  These  theologians  aim  at  a  complete  system  built 
upon  philosophy  and  science,  Bible  and  history,  church  and 
creed.  But  those  American  dogmatic  systems  that  depreciate 
tlie  reason  and  then  go  to  extremes  in  dogmatic  specula- 
tion ;  that  ignore  Biblical  theology  and  then  search  the  Bible 
with  a  lantern  for  props  for  their  dogmas  ;  that  turn  their 
backs  on  the  historical  church  and  institutional  Christianity,  and 
then  chase  every  shadow  of  tradition  that  may  seem  to  give  them 
support,  however  feeble, — such  systems  are  but  castles  in  the  air, 
schoolboys'  bubbles,  the  delight  of  a  body  of  ministers  in  a 
period  of  transition,  but  witliout  the  slightest  substantial  contri- 
bution to  the  faith  and  life  of  the  generations  to  come. 

VI.— LAST   THIXGS. 

AYe  have  exhausted  our  space  in  the  study  of  the  first  things. 
Wc  must  sketch  rapidly  the  topics  that  remain.  The  last 
things  embrace  death,  the  middle  state,  the  resurrection,  and 
the  Messianic  judgment  with  its  rewards  and  penalties.  The 
Kcformers  rejected  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
but  did  not  state  a  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  middle  state.  They 
concentrated  their  attention  u2:)on  justification  by  faith  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  life  ;  they  did  not  unfold  the  whole 
doctrine  of  redemption.  The  field  of  eschatology  was  left  by 
them  in  a  very  obscure  condition.  Tiiey  simply  maintained  the 
old  church  doctrine  after  they  had  stripped  off  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic errors.  They  made  no  advance  at  this  point.  Groat  changes 
have  taken  place  in  the  Christian  Avorld  since  the  Reformation. 
The  neglect  of  infant  baptism  and  church  membership  by  the 
masses  in  Christendom,  the  opening-up  of  the  heathen  world  in 
numbers  greatly  exceeding  the  nominal  Christian  world,  have  com- 
pelled earnest  men  to  ask  the  question  how  infants  can  be  saved, 
and  how  the  heathen,  any  of  them,  may  be  redeemed  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
Increased   attention   to    Christian   ethics   and   the    doctrine   of 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  CRISIS.  113 

sanctification  has  raised  the  question  liow  men  dying  imperfect 
and  unsanctified  are  to  be  sanctified.  These  questions  are  not 
answered  by  the  creeds.  They  have  been  considered  only  in  a 
very  inadequate  way  in  the  traditional  dogma.  Tliey  demand  a 
more  thorough  investigation  and  scientific  statement.  The 
Christian  world  is  agitated  on  all  these  questions,  and  the  theo- 
logical crisis  is  largely  due  to  these  discussions.  There  is  great 
n-jed  of  patience,  charity,  independent  and  fearless  investigation, 
while  they  are  in  debate.  The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctifica 
tion  after  death  is  built  on  the  Bible  and  the  creeds.  It  is  in 
conflict  with  traditional  dogma,  but  not  with  any  decision  of  the 
historic  church.  It  is  a  doctrine  which  lies  at  the  root  of  pur- 
gatory, but  is  not  purgatory.  It  is  a  divine  discipline,  not  a 
human  probation.  It  is  in  harmony  with  all  the  doctrines  that 
have  been  defined  in  the  creeds.  It  banishes  from  the  mind  the 
terror  of  a  judgment  immediately  after  death,  and  the  illusion  of 
a  magical  transformation  in  the  dying  hour,  and  it  presents  in 
their  stead  a  heavenly  university,  a  school  of  gi-ace,  an  advance 
in  sanctity  and  glory  in  the  presence  of  the  J\Iessiah  and  the 
saintly  dead,  which  is  a  blessed  hope  to  the  living  and  a  consola- 
tion to  the  suffering  and  the  dying. 

YII. — THE    CHRIST. 

Jesus  Christ  is  the  pivot  of  history,  the  centre  of  theology,  the 
light  and  joy  of  the  world.  No  age  has  been  so  intent  npon  the 
study  of  the  person,  life,  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  present 
age.  The  life  of  Jesus  has  been  the  theme  of  the  greatest  writers 
of  our  day,  and  yet  no  theme  is  so  fresh  and  inspiring.  The  pro- 
foundest  theological  treatises  of  the  century  have  used  all  the 
powers  of  the  human  mind  in  their  efforts  to  understand  and  to 
explain  the  unique  personality  of  our  Redeemer.  The  traditional 
dogma  unfolded  the  Christ  of  the  cross  and  the  atonement  wrought 
thereon,  but  the  Christ  of  the  throne  and  the  heavenly  mediation 
have  been  neglected.  Modern  Christology  is  unfolding  the 
humiliation  of  Christ,  the  Kenosis  of  the  second  person  of  the 
trinity,  the  incarnation,  the  resurrection,  the  second  advent  of 
our  Lord.  All  these  j)hases  of  Christology  are  in  course  of  evolu- 
tion. They  cast  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  whole  field  of  theology, 
and  are  gradually  transforming  every  other  doctrine.  As  Henry 
B.  Smith  well  said  :  "  What  reformed  theology  has  got  to  do  is  to 
Christologize  predestination  and  decrees  ;  regeneration  and  sancti- 
VOL.  CLIII.— NO.  416.  8 


114  THE  NORTH  AMERICAN  REVIEW. 

fication;  the  doctrine  of  the  church;  and  the  whole  of  eschatology." 
There  are  new  difficulties  and  contests  about  all  these  ques- 
tions. German  theology  is  agitated  over  the  mode  of  the  incarna- 
tion— whether  it  was  instantaneous  or  gradual ;  over  the  Kenosis, 
and  the  construction  of  the  complex  nature  of  the  Redeemer. 
Anglican  theology  is  agitated  with  regard  to  the  virgin  birth  of 
our  Lord  and  the  nature  of  the  resurrection  body.  Many  of  the 
Evangelicals  are  especially  interested  in  the  doctrine  of  the  second 
advent.  Each  party  is  doing  its  Avork  in  the  unfolding  of  some 
special  section  of  Christianity.  American  Christianity  is  back- 
ward still  in  the  department  of  Christology  ;  but  ere  long  it 
will  become  the  most  absorbing,  as  it  is  ever  the  grandest,  theme 
for  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  first  things  and  the  last  things 
will  be  absorbed  in  the  blaze  of  the  glory  of   the  Messiah. 

VIII. — THE    GAIN". 

The  fruits  of  this  theological  crisis  can  only  be  great,  lasting, 
and  good.  The  first  things,  the  sources  and  foundations  of 
Christianity,  will  be  tested,  strengthened,  and  assured.  The  living 
God  will  a])proach  men  who  use  all  the  media  of  divine  influence, 
and  grant  them  union  and  communion  as  never  before.  Vital 
union  Avith  the  living  God  Avill  make  living  Christians,  a  living 
church,  and  doctrines  animated  with  holy  living  and  doing. 

The  last  things  will  cease  to  frighten  Aveak  Christians,  and  stif- 
fen brave  men  into  the  rejection  of  such  childish  conceptions  of 
the  universe  as  prevail  in  the  traditional  dogma.  They  Avill  become 
the  hope  and  joy,  the  comfort  and  consolation,  of  manly,  heroic 
Christians  ready  to  do  and  dare  for  Christ  and  his  kingdom. 

Jesus  Christ,  in  his  unique  personality,  in  the  wonders  of  his 
theanthropic  nature,  in  the  comprehension  of  his  Avork  of  re- 
demption, will  present  himself  to  the  consciousness  of  men  as  their 
loving  Master  and  gracious  SoA'ereign,  whom  to  love,  serve,  and 
adore  will  be  the  bliss  of  living  and  dying.  "  To  be  Avell-pleasing 
to  Christ "  Avill  be  the  one  end  and  aim  of  the  Christian  Avorld. 

It  is  evident  that  the  CA'olutions  of  Christian  theology  which 
have  brought  on  the  theological  crisis  are  preparing  the  Avay  for 
a  new  Reformation,  in  Avhich  it  is  prob.able  that  all  the  Christian 
churches  Avill  share  ;  each  one,  under  the  influence  of  the  divine 
Spirit,  making  its  own  important  contribution  to  the  Avorld-wide 
movement,  Avhose  goal  is  the  unity  of  the  church  and  the  re- 
demption of  the  Avorld.  C.  A.  Briggs. 


